This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[kokjo]

it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.

But not it's ability to keep them safe.

I don't want security guards on my university.

You don't need them now, why would you need them if the Danish government was a private entity?

USA lacks appropriate gun laws... USA needs them...

Non Sequitur. That does not answer the question.

Because Denmark have strict regulations of guns, we do not have the need of armed guards at our universities.

AnCap would require a zero-regulations policy, and we therefor would need armed security guards.

Follow now?

[kokjo]

Then go to a university that doesn't have security guards.

Fuck off to your seastead!

[Rassah]

Because Denmark have strict regulations of guns, we do not have the need of armed guards at our universities.

AnCap would require a zero-regulations policy, and we therefor would need armed security guards.

Follow now?

Who exactly enforces those gun regulations, if not other people with guns? And why can't a private non-government entity have rules that there are no guns allowed on a specific property, such as on their university, and even use people with guns to enforce those regulations? What's the "magic" that gives government gun-toting regulators the power to regulate guns and keep safe, that a private entity can't have?

[Rassah]

Then go to a university that doesn't have security guards.

Fuck off to your seastead!

I live on land I bought and paid for. Why the hell should I?

[myrkul]

Because Denmark have strict regulations of guns, we do not have the need of armed guards at our universities.

AnCap would require a zero-regulations policy, and we therefor would need armed security guards.

Follow now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_University_shooting
Good thing guns are illegal.

But you misunderstand. Private entities are free to restrict guns on their property. If the customers of DenmarkGov wanted to keep guns off their property, they could have DenmarkGov make sure that nobody brought guns in. Of course, if someone wanted to own a gun, they'd be free to join a Government which allowed them to have guns, they just couldn't bring them onto DenmarkGov protected territory.

[myrkul]

You can't "enforce" the NAP. It's basically just a general agreement that states, "if you screw with me, I have the right to retaliate." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it meant, or if that's it, then what do you disagree with in that?

Agreement? I didn't agree.

So, basically, you claim the right to commit violence on whoever you want without repercussion.

[Rassah]

You can't "enforce" the NAP. It's basically just a general agreement that states, "if you screw with me, I have the right to retaliate." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it meant, or if that's it, then what do you disagree with in that?

Agreement? I didn't agree. And what about all the people who are born into your pet system? They will want to rebel.

Rebel against what? The idea that if someone attacks them, they can defend themselves? Or the idea that others should be able to defend themselves from their attacks? Frankly, rebel how? By going on a killing spree, because they don't agree that others should have a right to defend themselves? That would result in them being promptly shot though, so, uh, let them rebel?
Only thing that NAP "forces" is that you treat others like you would like others to treat you. And it doesn't even force that. You are still free to be a murderous asshole, it's just that everyone else will agree that it's ok to shoot you for it.

[myrkul]

We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.

It would be freedom of religion if you wanted lots of different "Non-Aggression Principles" all competing with each other.

You also (unsurprisingly) fail to understand the analogy.

No, you fail to see your own coercion in trying to promote an unnatural monopoly.
And don't even bother claiming that the NAP would somehow be a 'natural' monopoly because you've already shown your fear by being unwilling to test it! You just want ONE N.A.P. and nothing else is allowed to compete with it on the open market!

OK, I'll call that bluff:

Can you give me an example of some of these other NAPs that would be competing?

[wdmw]

We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.

It would be freedom of religion if you wanted lots of different "Non-Aggression Principles" all competing with each other.

You also (unsurprisingly) fail to understand the analogy.

No, you fail to see your own coercion in trying to promote an unnatural monopoly.
And don't even bother claiming that the NAP would somehow be a 'natural' monopoly because you've already shown your fear by being unwilling to test it! You just want ONE N.A.P. and nothing else is allowed to compete with it on the open market!

OK, I'll call that bluff:

Can you give me an example of some of these other NAPs that would be competing?

An example of a competing Non Aggression Principle would be one where I do not initiate force against others, but do not defend my own property rights or seek justice when they are violated.  However, it doesn't infringe on someone else's NAP, since I am not aggressing against them.  The only way a competing NAP could violate the others is if it were an aggression principle.

A NAP that chooses to defend property rights would be in violation of an Aggression Principle which held that you initiate force against others, and they cannot defend themselves.  Surely, no one is advocating this?

[hawkeye]

It's easy to prove that the NAP is correct, by looking at the opposite and proving that it is incorrect.    The opposite says that some people do have the right to aggress against others.  Where is the proof that this is correct?  If there is no proof, then the NAP must be correct.  It's simply the null hypothesis.

Government is just an ancient tradition.   Being a tradition does not make it a valid concept.    I'm sure people argued for keeping slavery back in the day as well.  After all, it was pretty much all that the human race had known and was seen as necessary for agriculture.  Except when you actually examine it, you can see there is no basis for one man being able to own another, regardless of what the laws of the day said.

Not being able to be aggressive against others is such a fundamental truth I'm honestly surprised people argue against it.

If I was arguing on the side of the aggressors I'd honestly be embarrassed, if not ashamed (if it had been pointed out to me), about it.

[myrkul]

An example of a competing Non Aggression Principle would be one where I do not initiate force against others, but do not defend my own property rights or seek justice when they are violated.

In other words, pacifism. Yeah, I can live in peace with a pacifist.

A NAP that chooses to defend property rights would be in violation of an Aggression Principle which held that you initiate force against others, and they cannot defend themselves.  Surely, no one is advocating this?

Oh, I wouldn't doubt kokjo would, just to be contrarian.

[Rassah]

You can't "enforce" the NAP. It's basically just a general agreement that states, "if you screw with me, I have the right to retaliate." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it meant, or if that's it, then what do you disagree with in that?

Agreement? I didn't agree. And what about all the people who are born into your pet system? They will want to rebel.

Rebel against what? [And then he evangelizes the N.A.P. proto-government...]

I was supposed to be "kind of dumb", remember? If you can't figure it out...

Well, maybe I'm dumb, because I honestly cannot not figure out more versions of "I will not attack you, but will defend myself if you attack me" other than that one, which says "I will not attack you, but will defend myself if you attack me."

I mean, I guess someone could say, "I will attack you, and you should have no right to defend yourself," or "I will not defend myself even if you attack me," but those are not NAP.

So, again, can you please pretend that I am the dumb one, and give me some examples of "I will not attack you, but will defend myself," otherwise known as the NAP, that compete with each other?

[kokjo]

I mean, I guess someone could say, "I will attack you, and you should have no right to defend yourself," or "I will not defend myself even if you attack me," but those are not NAP.

the second one is NAP-compatible...

[hawkeye]

I mean, I guess someone could say, "I will attack you, and you should have no right to defend yourself," or "I will not defend myself even if you attack me," but those are not NAP.

the second one is NAP-compatible...

Or to put it in other words

You are not allowed to initiate force against another person.
If another person/s initiates force against you, defending yourself is a perfectly valid response, but ultimately it's your choice whether you want to or not.

Personally I would defend myself, but each to his own.

Personal choice.  It's a wonderful thing.

[hawkeye]

OK, I'll take this one since I'm a determinist anarchist.

Notice how it's missing your favourite part? No special extras for property-obsessed Capitalist cronies! You keep trying to avoid that point by falsely accusing NAP opponents of promoting violence. You keep pushing a straw man.

Who does own property if not us?  Do you own your house?  Your car?  Your computer?   Your clothes, TV, etc, etc...

However, even that version of the NAP still has problems.

• Initiate implies a world with free will and determinism. I'm not arguing for or against others' philosophical views on this, but why is the NAP trying to force the issue?
• It threatens people who consider other philosophies because it basically says "you better watch out about that non-free-will stuff because we might see you as initiating force (even if you don't see it that way), which might make you a target for retaliation." As such, it fails its own purpose. The NAP is coercive.

First of all, where in determinism does it say you can initiate force against another person?

We may be in a deterministic universe but there is no way, at least with current technology of using the present to accurately forecast the future.  You would basically have to take a complete snapshot in one moment of time of all the atoms, electrons, quarks, etc and know all the physical rules binding them.  Doesn't seem likely we will ever have such a machine.  We are all agents making our own decisions.  They may be determined completely from all the environmental factors surrounding us from before the day we were born but regardless we make decisions.   

It all comes back to my first point, determinism tells you nothing about how humans should behave.  In particular, it doesn't say that some humans should be allowed to initiate force against others.  In the absence of such evidence we have to assume that we are all equal and no-one has any rights above any one else.  I'm really not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

In case you missed that last point and still haven't gone home:

• It's silent about retaliation, retribution... vicious justice that is ten times more severe than the crime... So the secret An-Cap committee said that starting force is evil and must be stopped, but any kind of reactionary aggression is OK, irrespective of its violence? Interesting...
• Which brings us to rights. An-Caps try to impose a concept of "universal rights" by saying that "No person has the right..." But maybe some people do have the right, in some societies? What gives An-Caps the right to impose their philosophical perversions on everyone? Obviously they don't have that right, which leads to the rigorous and inescapable conclusion that rights are subjective and determined by society.

What gives statists a right to say some people have rights above others?  Tradition?  It goes back to what I said before, in the absence of evidence of people having special rights, everyone is equal.  It's the default position.   

You say maybe some people do have a right to initiate force against others.  Great.  All you have to do is show one example and you nullify the NAP hypothesis.   Logic 101.  So let's see just one example.  That's all that's required.  Shouldn't be too hard.

[myrkul]

OK, a very crude, simplistic example to hammer the point home (you probably still won't get it...):

"No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person."

Notice how it's missing your favourite part? No special extras for property-obsessed Capitalist cronies! You keep trying to avoid that point by falsely accusing NAP opponents of promoting violence. You keep pushing a straw man.

It's hardly my favorite part. But it does sort of wreck the symmetry of the concept. Still, let's see where that goes, shall we?

First off, burglary becomes an accepted act, as does breaking and entering. After all, those are crimes only against a person's property. You would have to sleep in your car, because taking it out of the driveway would be perfectly fine. Basically, anything not physically in your possession is "up for grabs." It's not all bad, though, you can't force someone to "share" their food, because that would require the initiation of at least a threat of force upon the person. Of course anything just sitting there in the pantry, unused, you'd be free to take, and nobody could stop you, since that would be initiating force against you.

So, if this were implemented tomorrow, I imagine there would be an orgy of theft and redistribution, after which I doubt anyone would do much work, given that the proceeds of that work could be taken from him as soon as he set it down. Anything that a person wanted to keep, they'd need to keep on their person at all times.

Maybe blablahblah is OK with a society full of people like this:


but it doesn't sound ideal to me.

[Rassah]

OK, a very crude, simplistic example to hammer the point home (you probably still won't get it...):

"No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person."

• Initiate implies a world with free will and determinism. I'm not arguing for or against others' philosophical views on this, but why is the NAP trying to force the issue?
• It threatens people who consider other philosophies because it basically says "you better watch out about that non-free-will stuff because we might see you as initiating force (even if you don't see it that way), which might make you a target for retaliation." As such, it fails its own purpose. The NAP is coercive.

Only think I can possibly say about this is *facepalm*

By the way, an accident is not agression, just in case you didn't know that.

In case you missed that last point and still haven't gone home:

• It's silent about retaliation, retribution... vicious justice that is ten times more severe than the crime... So the secret An-Cap committee said that starting force is evil and must be stopped, but any kind of reactionary aggression is OK, irrespective of its violence? Interesting...

"Any kind?" Are you sure? Who determines NAP, or when someone aggressed against someone? Hint, it's not some government. So who will decide how much retaliatory force is appropriate? Hint, it's also not some government. Being a distributed, community-based "agreement," I'm fairly certain people will frown on excessive retaliation just as they will on aggression.

• Which brings us to rights. An-Caps try to impose a concept of "universal rights" by saying that "No person has the right..." But maybe some people do have the right, in some societies? What gives An-Caps the right to impose their philosophical perversions on everyone? Obviously they don't have that right, which leads to the rigorous and inescapable conclusion that rights are subjective and determined by society.

I'm with Hawkeye on this. When would someone have the right to initiate force or aggression? In what societies? Some examples please.

[kokjo]

now to you people who is saying that Denmark is failing after reading it in New York Times.
read the danish news paper article http://www.information.dk/458873
or just look at this picture(procent of the population who is working):



(i know that is it in danish, but google translate is your friend...)

[myrkul]

So, the black line (falling) is Denmark, and the gray line (rising) is USA?

[kokjo]

So, the black line (falling) is Denmark, and the gray line (rising) is USA?

did you notice the trend about, that denmark rises after USA with a 'short' delay?
or that Denmark's movement down is flatting out?